Supreme Court Issues Notice on Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea Challenging Recognition of Rebel MPs’ Merger with Shinde Faction

New Delhi, July 2026 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker’s office and six rebel Shiv Sena (UBT) Members of Parliament on a petition challenging the Speaker’s decision to recognise their merger with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena under the provisions of the anti-defection law.

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe sought responses from the respondents and scheduled the matter for further hearing after two weeks. However, the apex court declined to grant interim relief by staying Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision recognising the merger.

The notices have been issued to the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, and the six MPs involved in the dispute—Bhausaheb Waghchaure, Nagesh Patil Ashtikar, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Sanjay Bandu Jadhav, Sanjay Deshmukh, and Sanjay Dina Patil.

The petition has been filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Arvind Sawant, who has challenged the constitutional validity of the Speaker’s decision under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with exemptions from disqualification in the event of a merger.

According to Sawant, the Speaker’s order has significantly weakened the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s parliamentary presence by reducing its strength in the Lok Sabha from nine MPs to just three after recognising the six legislators as members of the Shinde-led faction.

The petition argues that no merger of the original political party had taken place and, therefore, the six MPs could not invoke the merger provision under the anti-defection law to avoid disqualification. It contends that the legislature party cannot independently claim a merger unless the original political party itself has formally decided to merge with another political entity.

The dispute arose after six of the nine Shiv Sena (UBT) Lok Sabha MPs approached the Speaker, claiming that they constituted the required two-thirds majority of the legislature party and were therefore entitled to protection under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.

Before the Speaker delivered his ruling, Shiv Sena (UBT) had strongly opposed the move, maintaining that party chief Uddhav Thackeray had neither initiated nor approved any merger with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. The party argued that legislators could only choose to accept or reject a merger initiated by the original political party and could not themselves engineer such a merger.

Despite these objections, Speaker Om Birla recognised the merger, following which the six MPs ceased to be members of the Shiv Sena (UBT) Parliamentary Party and were recognised as part of the Shinde faction.

Meanwhile, the constitutional debate surrounding the anti-defection law has widened. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal has filed a separate writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the prevailing interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.

Mentioning the matter before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Sibal argued that the current interpretation allows groups of legislators to bypass disqualification by claiming mergers, thereby undermining the very purpose of the anti-defection law.

“If this trend continues, the Tenth Schedule will become meaningless,” Sibal submitted before the court.

His petition, filed against the Union of India, seeks a fresh constitutional interpretation of the merger provisions under the anti-defection law to prevent defections from being legitimised through legislative manoeuvres.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to have significant implications for the interpretation of the anti-defection law and future political realignments within legislatures across the country.

(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)